1B - Non Fatal Offences Against The Person - Case List Flashcards
Assault - R v Nelson
CoA stated that ‘what is required for common assault is for [D] to have done something of a physical kind’. It has to be a physical act, an omission isn’t enough
Assault - Constanza
Letters can amount to an assault
Assault - Ireland
Silent phone calls can be an assault
Assault - R v Lamb
D pointed an unloaded gun at someone who thought its unloaded cannot be assault as they didn’t fear an immediate force. However, the gun was loaded and the victim was shot but it wasn’t assault as they didn’t fear any immediate force
‘apprehend’ means that the V mist fear unlawful force for there to be an assault
Assault - Smith v CS of Woking Police Station
V fearing what the D could do even though he was locked out amounted to an assault
IMMEDIATE ≠ INSTANTANEOUS
Assault - Light
The V feared that force was going to be used on her and the words in the circumstances were not enough to negate that fear
Assault - Tuberville v Savage
D places one hand on his sword and said ‘if it were not assize time, I would not take such language from you’. This was held not to be an assault, because what he said showed he was not going to do anything
Assault - Mohan
Direct intention - D’s main aim or purpose was to cause another to fear immediate unlawful force
Assault - Woolin
Indirect intention - it was not the D’s main aim or purpose but it is virtually certain from the D’s act that another would fear immediate force and the D would have realised this
Assault - Cunningham
Recklessness - the D knew that was a risk of causing another to fear immediate unlawful force because of their actions but continued to take the risk
Battery - Collins v Wilcock
Any touching may be a battery and always is if there was a physical restraint
Battery - Wood (Fraser) v DPP
Held that there was a technical battery thus meaning W was entitled to struggle and wasn’t guilty of any offence against the police
Battery - R v Thomas
The D touched the bottom of a woman’s skirt and rubbed it. CoA said, orbiter, ‘there could be no dispute that if you touch a persons clothing while he is wearing them that is equivalent to touching him’
Battery - Fagan v MPC
The actus reus of assault can be an ongoing at so that the complete offence is committed when D forms the mens rea
Battery - DPP v Santa-Bermudez
An omission is sufficient for the actus reus of assault
Battery - DPP v K
An indirect act can satisfy the actus reus of assault
Battery - Haystead
You don’t need to directly touch the V and transferred malice is enough
ABH - What does Miller say?
‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim’
ABH - What does Chan Fook say?
That it cannot be trivial or insignificant harm. It also says psychiatric injury is also classed as ABH but ‘mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic’ arent ABH, nor is ‘states of mind that are not themselves evidence of some identifiable clinical condition’
ABH - What does T v DPP say?
Loss of consciousness even momentarily was held to be ABH
ABH - What does Smith (Michael) say?
ABH can include cutting somebody’s hair
ABH - What does Savage show?
It’s not necessary to demonstrate the D had the mens rea in relation to the level of harm inflicted. It’s sufficient that they intended or could foresee that some harm will result.
GBH - R v Burstow
Inflict has the same meaning as cause and that serious psychiatric harm can be enough for GBH
GBH - JCC v Eisenhower
V hit in eye with a shotgun pellet so it was bleeding under the surface so it wasn’t a wound
GBH - what did DPP v Smith define GBH as?
really serious harm
GBH - what did Saunders replace ‘really serious harm’ with?
serious harm - it was held that ‘really’ adds nothing
GBH - what did Bollom say?
Take into account V’s age and health
GBH - what does Dica say?
Disease is enough to satisfy GBH
GBH - what does Martin say?
GBH does not need to be dierct contact
GBH - what does Cunningham say?
Maliciously doesn’t require any ill will
GBH - what does Parmenter say?
The intention or subjective recklessness as to causing some harm
GBH - what does Belfon say?
The prosecution must prove D’s purpose is to cause GBH
GBH - what does Taylor say?
Intention to wound is not enough
GBH - what does Morrison say?
the mens rea fro s.18 can include preventing or resisting arrest
Constanza (1997)
The defendant wrote 800 letters and made phone calls to the victim.
Written words can be an assault if they cause the victim to fear immediate violence.
Smith v Chief Superintendent (Woking) (1983)
The defendant looked through the victim’s bedroom window late at night.
Fear of what the defendant would do next was sufficient for the actus reus of assault.
Tuberville v Savage (1669)
The defendant put their hand on a sword and said “were it not assize time, I would not take such language from you”.
Words can prevent an act from being an assault, but it depends on the circumstances.
Collins v Wilcock (1984)
A police officer held a woman’s arm to prevent her walking away.
Any touching may be a battery, and always is if there was physical restraints.
Wood (Fraser) v DPP (2008)
An officer took hold of Wood’s arm to check his identity.
This was a battery by the police and Wood was entitled to struggle to release himself.
Wood (Fraser) v DPP (2008)
An officer took hold of Wood’s arm to check his identity.
This was a battery by the police and Wood was entitled to struggle to release himself.
